Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some models of reality are bolder than others

cjauvin.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#11

Post by dr_dshiv »

mrguyorama wrote: post #6
dr_dshiv wrote: post #5

> I find it very appealing to consider the idea that the world is not somehow running “hidden mathematics”, somewhere and somehow, to solve some complicated equations in a seemingly magical way, but rather, that things are radically simpler, in that the world is simply implementing a set of trivially simple rules. The world is not concerned with, or made with mathematics, mathematics just emerges, with inherent and i…

There is a distinction between "What the universe is made of or how it works just happens to be really compatible with how math describes things" and "The universe is just "running" math and we discovered that math and use it for other things" But like, words stop working at these levels of rigor. What the hell does "The universe is made of math" mean? How can something be made of a field of study? Where is the "Addi…

Pythagoras almost certainly was misinterpreted.

Unsayable numbers (the way the Greeks said irrational numbers) can take the wrong meaning. Like, why are they unsayable? Because you’d die before you could say them. Well, it’s not a threat!

Then it turns into this whole ahistorical fabrication impugning Pythagoras who was, otherwise, pretty much the most incredible guy ever.

Now, the “addition particle” is a strawman, but harder to deal with is just numbers. Are numbers real? Are there discrete “things” in the universe? Well, yes there are. Frequencies or quanta do just fine. Now, when there are numbers, they can be added, whether we want to or not.

Another example would be geometries. Are spheres real? Surely! Do they exist on any planet in the universe? It would seem. Are there any perfect spheres? Nope. Do they precede matter and energy? It would seem.

I think we are saying the same thing. Unfortunately, these beliefs are slippery and metaphysical. I take pride, though, in the pythagoreanness of so many of the scientific greats, from Newton to Penrose.

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#12

Post by pavel_lishin »

d4rkn0d3z wrote: post #9

It is interesting that we can measure absolutely every physical quantity in units of length and that our best gravitational theory is based on manifold curvature characterised by an infinitessimal line element. This suggests that ultimately the universe may be geometric in nature with, at least from our perspective, a fundamental length (area) scale at which very simple geometric rules operate ad infinitum to produce…

> It is interesting that we can measure absolutely every physical quantity in units of length

Can we?

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#13

Post by ui23 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #5

> I find it very appealing to consider the idea that the world is not somehow running “hidden mathematics”, somewhere and somehow, to solve some complicated equations in a seemingly magical way, but rather, that things are radically simpler, in that the world is simply implementing a set of trivially simple rules. The world is not concerned with, or made with mathematics, mathematics just emerges, with inherent and i…

Mathematics is just a tool, like language, for describing reality, not reality itself.

A cake is not made of numbers like 5 cups flour + 3 eggs, but we can model it as such. In principle we could invent any such system of symbols to describe the physical world but those symbols don’t define it. The physical world only nudges us toward what symbols work and which don’t.

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#14

Post by fellowniusmonk »

d4rkn0d3z wrote: post #9

It is interesting that we can measure absolutely every physical quantity in units of length and that our best gravitational theory is based on manifold curvature characterised by an infinitessimal line element. This suggests that ultimately the universe may be geometric in nature with, at least from our perspective, a fundamental length (area) scale at which very simple geometric rules operate ad infinitum to produce…

Pretty sure we just need a clock.

State change/differentiation exists, that's what we can't get rid of in the physical world no matter how hard we try.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-71907-0#Sec8

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#15

Post by dr_dshiv »

ui23 wrote: post #13
dr_dshiv wrote: post #5

> I find it very appealing to consider the idea that the world is not somehow running “hidden mathematics”, somewhere and somehow, to solve some complicated equations in a seemingly magical way, but rather, that things are radically simpler, in that the world is simply implementing a set of trivially simple rules. The world is not concerned with, or made with mathematics, mathematics just emerges, with inherent and i…

Mathematics is just a tool, like language, for describing reality, not reality itself. A cake is not made of numbers like 5 cups flour + 3 eggs, but we can model it as such. In principle we could invent any such system of symbols to describe the physical world but those symbols don’t define it. The physical world only nudges us toward what symbols work and which don’t.

Strawman. You are claiming math isn’t real?

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#16

Post by ui23 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #15
ui23 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematics is just a tool, like language, for describing reality, not reality itself. A cake is not made of numbers like 5 cups flour + 3 eggs, but we can model it as such. In principle we could invent any such system of symbols to describe the physical world but those symbols don’t define it. The physical world only nudges us toward what symbols work and which don’t.

Strawman. You are claiming math isn’t real?

Not a strawman. I’m not stating that math isn’t real. It’s real as an abstract framework that humans create and refine. It’s not, however, foundational to the physical world in the way fundamental particles or gravity is. Numbers and equations don’t push particles around, they simply help us represent that kind of phenomena that we observe.

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#17

Post by d4rkn0d3z »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #12
d4rkn0d3z wrote: post #9

It is interesting that we can measure absolutely every physical quantity in units of length and that our best gravitational theory is based on manifold curvature characterised by an infinitessimal line element. This suggests that ultimately the universe may be geometric in nature with, at least from our perspective, a fundamental length (area) scale at which very simple geometric rules operate ad infinitum to produce…

> It is interesting that we can measure absolutely every physical quantity in units of length Can we?

Yes of course, not only can we but it makes everything so much easier.

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#18

Post by d4rkn0d3z »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #14
d4rkn0d3z wrote: post #9

It is interesting that we can measure absolutely every physical quantity in units of length and that our best gravitational theory is based on manifold curvature characterised by an infinitessimal line element. This suggests that ultimately the universe may be geometric in nature with, at least from our perspective, a fundamental length (area) scale at which very simple geometric rules operate ad infinitum to produce…

Pretty sure we just need a clock. State change/differentiation exists, that's what we can't get rid of in the physical world no matter how hard we try. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-71907-0#Sec8

Time can also be viewed as a length.

Re: Some models of reality are bolder than others

#19

Post by dr_dshiv »

ui23 wrote: post #16
dr_dshiv wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strawman. You are claiming math isn’t real?

Not a strawman. I’m not stating that math isn’t real. It’s real as an abstract framework that humans create and refine. It’s not, however, foundational to the physical world in the way fundamental particles or gravity is. Numbers and equations don’t push particles around, they simply help us represent that kind of phenomena that we observe.

So spheres are invented by humans? In another universe, there are no spheres or triangles?
Post reply on HN